| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2006 04:52:38 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
why is my reply deleted but noth the one I was replying to ? |
Your reply contained name-calling and personal attacks. The post you replied to did not. Please review the forum rules for more information.
Originally posted by DanSig:
in the old days people like that were called Nazis ! |
Godwin's Law invoked.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/01/2006 04:48:25 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
actually they were called Nazis long before they killed the first jew, it started as a political party, just like the American republican party, wich is getting pretty close to commiting genocide in Iraq.... |
Another load of crap. Can somebody move this to rant, since Dan doesn't seem to be able to carry on a civil conversation without insulting my intelligence and comparing me to a murderous dictator just because of my choice of political party? Good grief. |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 04:40:45 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DanSig:
in the old days people like that were called Nazis !
|
No, people who attempted genocide and killed between 5 and 7 million Jews were called Nazis.
People who over-react and lack a sense of proportion however, are called something else. |
actually they were called Nazis long before they killed the first jew, it started as a political party, just like the American republican party, wich is getting pretty close to commiting genocide in Iraq.... |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 04:37:33 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
in the old days people like that were called Nazis !
|
No, people who attempted genocide and killed between 5 and 7 million Jews were called Nazis.
People who over-react and lack a sense of proportion however, are called something else.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2006 04:34:06 PM · #5 |
why is my reply deleted but noth the one I was replying to ?
this kind of censorship only makes people dislike this site and not wanting to participate in the forums.
either delete both post or neither !
denying people to answer posts like this but still letting the post stand is the highest level of favoritism, and should NOT be shown by Site Council or others in charge here, in the old days people like that were called Nazis !
please put my reply back, or delete the post quoting me. if not then delete my my account and all my images from this site, and every post mentioning me, because I do NOT want to be part of a site that shows this lack of propper management in site council ! |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 02:11:30 PM · #6 |
Folks- get back on topic so I don't have to lock this thread.
Thanky |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 01:20:19 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
a $1.000.000 house is just an average apartement here, it's not considered that expensive, and it's something the regular bank clerk buys. and Mercedes Bens and BMW, just as Range Rover and Porsche ar something we buy every day and is just a normal family car, Toyota and Chevrolet is for the poor people ;)
Iceland is a place the Hollywood stars come to regularly, Clint Eastwood was training at the same gym I go to, Damon Albarn owns a pub in Reykjavik, Metallica stood in line at the local hotdog stand just like everyone else, and so did Bill Clinton and many others.
so don't even try to make the USA look better than Iceland, you barely make it to the top 10 on the UNDP list. |
What a load of horseshit!
Million dollars for a regular apartment? {deleted}And no, it is NOT something that a regular bank clerk buys.
And also, Toyota is the most sold car in iceland, so i guess we have ALOT of poor people now in iceland. And no, we dont buy range rovers and such cars just like that. And Toyotas and chevrolets are just as popular, and not just for poor people.
For once stop talking S*it and tell the truth.
I´m from iceland, but i at least i tell the truth about the country. I dont make up lies to make it look better. It really doesnt need that
Message edited by ClubJuggle - Personal attack. |
|
|
|
12/01/2006 01:09:46 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by jblaylockrayner:
You might like a couple of my shots here then!
//homepage.mac.com/jblaylockrayner/PhotoAlbum8.html
Cheers |
HAHA.... i love the one with Jason Statham. After all the movies with fast cars and chicks, he drives that around! :) Thanks! |
|
|
|
11/26/2006 11:32:07 PM · #9 |
You might like a couple of my shots here then!
//homepage.mac.com/jblaylockrayner/PhotoAlbum8.html
Cheers |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 05:33:15 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by nards656:
I suspect there are some things about Iceland that are imperfect, as well.
I also suspect that there is simply not a concentration of famous people in Iceland (such as in some parts of California), which makes the cost of traveling there for a few pictures less attractive to photographers of the paparazzi inclination.
Please also remember that "private" versus "working" is a very hard line to draw. The very image of many of these folks is their most valuable asset; every time they walk into a given store it can be used to make many other people want to go to the same store.
My point is this, and perhaps you don't like it because of your particular political or socio-economic beliefs, but here it is - these folks make millions of dollars simply because of who they are. If they were NOT popular, they could not make the amount of money that they do. Thus, to regulate access to them is to decrease their popularity. Even the trashy tabloids actually contribute to the popularity of these individuals. If it weren't for the continual attention of these photographers that celebrities complain so about, it is (in my opinion) very likely that their popularity would decrease and they would actually have to work MORE to promote themselves to sustain their current level of income. While they may be able to "act like normal people" in Iceland, I can virtually guarantee you that the economy of Iceland is not such that would support their extravagant lifestyles. To work in entertainment - whether sports, fashion, movies, TV, or whatever - a person MUST appeal to the public. If they do not, the promoters of such will not continue to expend more and more cash to make you available to the public.
While I understand their struggle to have a private life, don't for a moment think that we can simply eliminate the paparazzi and everything else stay the same. Fame, by its very definition, means that a lot of people know and recognize these folks. Part of that happening is the capability of print and television to spread the word about them. Without that, well, the cycle should be obvious. |
you really should read up on Iceland before making statements like the one I made Bold.
Iceland is No 2. on the UNDP list of the best countries to live in, USA is No 8. source
Iceland is an easy place to get rich, one of the richest people in Iceland, now living in London made it from bankrupt to Forbes 500 in less than 10 years.
just today some Icelanders bought the WestHam United football club in UK
Icelanders own most of the big food and fashion chains in UK and Danmark.
Icelanders own some of the largest medical, and geneological companies in the world.
a $1.000.000 house is just an average apartement here, it's not considered that expensive, and it's something the regular bank clerk buys. and Mercedes Bens and BMW, just as Range Rover and Porsche ar something we buy every day and is just a normal family car, Toyota and Chevrolet is for the poor people ;)
Iceland is a place the Hollywood stars come to regularly, Clint Eastwood was training at the same gym I go to, Damon Albarn owns a pub in Reykjavik, Metallica stood in line at the local hotdog stand just like everyone else, and so did Bill Clinton and many others.
so don't even try to make the USA look better than Iceland, you barely make it to the top 10 on the UNDP list. |
Sounds like you've got it all under control up there. Congratulations.
You and I don't really communicate very well, so I'm just going to put the brakes on this whole discussion before we get upset at each other and break out the gloves.
I've got my opinion, you've got yours. They don't agree. Fair enough.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 05:11:53 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 05:11:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Just out of curiousity, what is the exchange rate when comparing American dollars to Icelandic "dollars?" We're you using 1 million in the above example to mean 1 million USD? |
it's about 71 Krona to the dollar, so I'd assume it was 1 million USD
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 05:09:28 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by DanSig:
a $1.000.000 house is just an average apartement here, it's not considered that expensive, and it's something the regular bank clerk buys. and Mercedes Bens and BMW, just as Range Rover and Porsche ar something we buy every day and is just a normal family car, Toyota and Chevrolet is for the poor people ;)
so don't even try to make the USA look better than Iceland, you barely make it to the top 10 on the UNDP list. |
the pride in your country is admirable.
Just out of curiousity, what is the exchange rate when comparing American dollars to Icelandic "dollars?" We're you using 1 million in the above example to mean 1 million USD? |
that was 1 million US $, our currency is ISK and that makes about 70 ISK to 1 US$ |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 05:07:10 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I *think* the point he was making was not that Iceland isn't rich, it is that the people that are "famous" in America wouldn't have that same opportunity in Iceland. They may visit Iceland, but they don't run their businesses there. Their "business" is dependent upon their popularity in America.
Does that make sense? |
yes it does make sence, but Hollywood still come to Iceland to make the biggest films each year...
the last Batman movie, Toombraider, Bond, the new Clint Eastwood film, and many more BIG hollywood pictures are filmed in Iceland, and it just gets more popular every year amongst film makers.
but still, I am soo glad the Hollywood "stars" don't live here, I like the quiet atmosphere here :) |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 05:06:26 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
a $1.000.000 house is just an average apartement here, it's not considered that expensive, and it's something the regular bank clerk buys. and Mercedes Bens and BMW, just as Range Rover and Porsche ar something we buy every day and is just a normal family car, Toyota and Chevrolet is for the poor people ;)
so don't even try to make the USA look better than Iceland, you barely make it to the top 10 on the UNDP list. |
the pride in your country is admirable.
Just out of curiousity, what is the exchange rate when comparing American dollars to Icelandic "dollars?" We're you using 1 million in the above example to mean 1 million USD? |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 04:58:57 PM · #16 |
I *think* the point he was making was not that Iceland isn't rich, it is that the people that are "famous" in America wouldn't have that same opportunity in Iceland. They may visit Iceland, but they don't run their businesses there. Their "business" is dependent upon their popularity in America.
Does that make sense?
Message edited by author 2006-11-21 17:00:12. |
|
|
|
11/21/2006 04:00:49 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by nards656:
I suspect there are some things about Iceland that are imperfect, as well.
I also suspect that there is simply not a concentration of famous people in Iceland (such as in some parts of California), which makes the cost of traveling there for a few pictures less attractive to photographers of the paparazzi inclination.
Please also remember that "private" versus "working" is a very hard line to draw. The very image of many of these folks is their most valuable asset; every time they walk into a given store it can be used to make many other people want to go to the same store.
My point is this, and perhaps you don't like it because of your particular political or socio-economic beliefs, but here it is - these folks make millions of dollars simply because of who they are. If they were NOT popular, they could not make the amount of money that they do. Thus, to regulate access to them is to decrease their popularity. Even the trashy tabloids actually contribute to the popularity of these individuals. If it weren't for the continual attention of these photographers that celebrities complain so about, it is (in my opinion) very likely that their popularity would decrease and they would actually have to work MORE to promote themselves to sustain their current level of income. While they may be able to "act like normal people" in Iceland, I can virtually guarantee you that the economy of Iceland is not such that would support their extravagant lifestyles. To work in entertainment - whether sports, fashion, movies, TV, or whatever - a person MUST appeal to the public. If they do not, the promoters of such will not continue to expend more and more cash to make you available to the public.
While I understand their struggle to have a private life, don't for a moment think that we can simply eliminate the paparazzi and everything else stay the same. Fame, by its very definition, means that a lot of people know and recognize these folks. Part of that happening is the capability of print and television to spread the word about them. Without that, well, the cycle should be obvious. |
you really should read up on Iceland before making statements like the one I made Bold.
Iceland is No 2. on the UNDP list of the best countries to live in, USA is No 8. source
Iceland is an easy place to get rich, one of the richest people in Iceland, now living in London made it from bankrupt to Forbes 500 in less than 10 years.
just today some Icelanders bought the WestHam United football club in UK
Icelanders own most of the big food and fashion chains in UK and Danmark.
Icelanders own some of the largest medical, and geneological companies in the world.
a $1.000.000 house is just an average apartement here, it's not considered that expensive, and it's something the regular bank clerk buys. and Mercedes Bens and BMW, just as Range Rover and Porsche ar something we buy every day and is just a normal family car, Toyota and Chevrolet is for the poor people ;)
Iceland is a place the Hollywood stars come to regularly, Clint Eastwood was training at the same gym I go to, Damon Albarn owns a pub in Reykjavik, Metallica stood in line at the local hotdog stand just like everyone else, and so did Bill Clinton and many others.
so don't even try to make the USA look better than Iceland, you barely make it to the top 10 on the UNDP list.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 02:01:47 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by redriver:
It's always more efficient to reduce a complex, complicated matter to a simple one.
Public persons (from movie stars to politicians) are selling, amongst other things, their image. The same way some people sell grocery or pencils. The same way a garbage man "sells" his dignity somehow (true for certain cultures). |
If I sold groceries or pencils, I'd be a bit annoyed if you came in, grabbed what you wanted and ran off then sold it somewhere else, without me getting any income from it or control over how it was sold.
If public persons are selling their image, what right do paparazzi have to take that image with out permission and sell it themselves ?
|
|
|
|
11/21/2006 12:47:04 PM · #19 |
It's always more efficient to reduce a complex, complicated matter to a simple one.
Public persons (from movie stars to politicians) are selling, amongst other things, their image. The same way some people sell grocery or pencils. The same way a garbage man "sells" his dignity somehow (true for certain cultures).
Everything has a price and for public persons paparazzi are there to collect it. As long as they don't jeopardize your life (famous Lady Di case), they are entitled to do it.
...and one more thing: how many of the ones criticizing paparazzi are buying tabloids? Paparazzi are harassing stars because you want them to. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 01:41:24 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by nards656:
The paparazzi really are just part of the price of fame. |
why is that ?
when the "famous" people come to Iceland they can walk the streets alone without any hazzle from paparazzi or fans, they can go shopping and have to stay in line like everyone else at the cashiers, and nobody really notices them.
...
so privat life should be privat, no matter how famous you are. |
I suspect there are some things about Iceland that are imperfect, as well.
I also suspect that there is simply not a concentration of famous people in Iceland (such as in some parts of California), which makes the cost of traveling there for a few pictures less attractive to photographers of the paparazzi inclination.
Please also remember that "private" versus "working" is a very hard line to draw. The very image of many of these folks is their most valuable asset; every time they walk into a given store it can be used to make many other people want to go to the same store.
My point is this, and perhaps you don't like it because of your particular political or socio-economic beliefs, but here it is - these folks make millions of dollars simply because of who they are. If they were NOT popular, they could not make the amount of money that they do. Thus, to regulate access to them is to decrease their popularity. Even the trashy tabloids actually contribute to the popularity of these individuals. If it weren't for the continual attention of these photographers that celebrities complain so about, it is (in my opinion) very likely that their popularity would decrease and they would actually have to work MORE to promote themselves to sustain their current level of income. While they may be able to "act like normal people" in Iceland, I can virtually guarantee you that the economy of Iceland is not such that would support their extravagant lifestyles. To work in entertainment - whether sports, fashion, movies, TV, or whatever - a person MUST appeal to the public. If they do not, the promoters of such will not continue to expend more and more cash to make you available to the public.
While I understand their struggle to have a private life, don't for a moment think that we can simply eliminate the paparazzi and everything else stay the same. Fame, by its very definition, means that a lot of people know and recognize these folks. Part of that happening is the capability of print and television to spread the word about them. Without that, well, the cycle should be obvious.
Message edited by author 2006-11-20 13:41:57. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 01:05:13 PM · #21 |
Just fit all the paparazzi with electro-collars on their genetalia that are triggered by shutter release and make them unremovable like those GPS bracelets they have for home arrest losers.
I don't like paparazzi... can you tell? |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 12:47:39 PM · #22 |
| Maybe the stars should start shooting back. They could collect shots of fav paparazzi photogs and trade them with each other. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 12:05:33 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Everyone seems to blame the Paparazzi, but ignores the magazines who buy the photos, and the public who buy them. The responsibility rests with the editors IMO. |
The paparazzi are just feeding the need of the editors
The editors are just feeding the need of the buying public
So the responsibility rests with the buyers & readers, IMO. |
You are exactly right. It's the public that drives this. 'Need' is what causes it. If there were NOT a need for the pictures there wouldn't be a problem but as long as the public continues to buy the magazines this will be a part of life!! |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 08:01:43 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by slide12345678:
if my salary was $750,000, or $4,678,000, or $36,784,000... i would not care who the heck takes my picture. whenever, whereever, bring it on |
I think it could get quite old, pretty quickly.
From the AP, via BBC.
 |
I always wanted to be a power sweeper, i never had the arms for it though. ???? :/ |
|
|
|
11/17/2006 10:26:22 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by slide12345678:
if my salary was $750,000, or $4,678,000, or $36,784,000... i would not care who the heck takes my picture. whenever, whereever, bring it on |
I think it could get quite old, pretty quickly.
From the AP, via BBC.
|
|
